It's that time of this year again. Although "abuzz" would be an exaggerated word in this year's context, at the workplace talks about appraisals have begun. It doesn't come as a surprise to me that appraisal more about talks! It's a long and wide procedure at our organization (and the results, well, are brief).
This involves getting a third umpire's opinion, although the benefit of any doubt goes with the umpire in most cases. How the world feels about your existence at the workplace is important to the management in appreciating/punishing individuals. What's more, you have to invite the opinions about yourself.
And as the other side of this tossed coin, multiple others invite opinions from you. Then, more often than not, you have to be politically (and grammatically, of course) correct. They ask for examples showing certain trait, which you have to provide. All in all, it's quite an involved process (and maybe even more for those who care much about the outcome).
To me, giving feedback is like giving an LBW decision. The best LBW judge I have seen is David Shepherd. He used to raise his finger in a jiffy or he would vehemently decline the appeal. You don't have to analyze each and everything to judge if the batsman had his leg before the wicket when the ball hit his pad. You just know how to judge. Same with the peer feedback. You just know what you are going to write about him/her.
But of course, it's more involved than raising a finger or shaking your head in negation. And with the deadlines approaching, that's taking a lot of effort and time. Not to mention, time, as it stands today, is a prime property. Particularly the way the current project is being handled.
Therefore, without wasting much of it, let me sign off for now.
This involves getting a third umpire's opinion, although the benefit of any doubt goes with the umpire in most cases. How the world feels about your existence at the workplace is important to the management in appreciating/punishing individuals. What's more, you have to invite the opinions about yourself.
And as the other side of this tossed coin, multiple others invite opinions from you. Then, more often than not, you have to be politically (and grammatically, of course) correct. They ask for examples showing certain trait, which you have to provide. All in all, it's quite an involved process (and maybe even more for those who care much about the outcome).
To me, giving feedback is like giving an LBW decision. The best LBW judge I have seen is David Shepherd. He used to raise his finger in a jiffy or he would vehemently decline the appeal. You don't have to analyze each and everything to judge if the batsman had his leg before the wicket when the ball hit his pad. You just know how to judge. Same with the peer feedback. You just know what you are going to write about him/her.
But of course, it's more involved than raising a finger or shaking your head in negation. And with the deadlines approaching, that's taking a lot of effort and time. Not to mention, time, as it stands today, is a prime property. Particularly the way the current project is being handled.
Therefore, without wasting much of it, let me sign off for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment